The just world hypothesis as an argumentative resource in debates about unemployment benefits

The concept of the “just world” is established as a key explanation for how people make sense of inequality so that those deemed to score high in belief in a just world are more likely to hold prejudicial beliefs and to blame people in poverty for their situations. However, this is an inadequate explanation for such complicated and controversial issues. To better understand talk about the just world and the controversial issue of the distribution of unemployment benefits (an issue of inequality), a discursive psychological approach to the just world is used. Therefore, a discourse analysis focusses on 2 feature length British televised discussions about benefit claimants called “The Big Benefit Row: Live” (Channel 5 3/2/2014) and “Benefits Britain: the Debate” (Channel 4 17/2/2014). The analysis demonstrates that people draw on both just and unjust world arguments simultaneously and also topicalise what counts as just so as to support their positions on unemployment benefits, rather than in the consistent way that just world theory would predict. It is therefore argued that the just world should be recast as a cultural value that facilitates arguments about benefits, rather than an internally held belief.     

Similarity, kernels, and the triangle inequality

Similarity is used as an explanatory construct throughout psychology and multidimensional scaling (MDS) is the most popular way to assess similarity. In MDS, similarity is intimately connected to the idea of a geometric representation of stimuli in a perceptual space. Whilst connecting similarity and closeness of stimuli in a geometric representation may be intuitively plausible, Tversky and Gati [Tversky, A., & Gati, I. (1982). Similarity, separability, and the triangle inequality. Psychological Review, 89(2), 123-154] have reported data which are inconsistent with the usual geometric representations that are based on segmental additivity. We show that similarity measures based on Shepard’s universal law of generalization [Shepard, R. N. (1987). Toward a universal law of generalization for psychologica science. Science, 237(4820), 1317-1323] lead to an inner product representation in a reproducing kernel Hilbert space. In such a space stimuli are represented by their similarity to all other stimuli. This representation, based on Shepard’s law, has a natural metric that does not have additive segments whilst still retaining the intuitive notion of connecting similarity and distance between stimuli. Furthermore, this representation has the psychologically appealing property that the distance between stimuli is bounded.     

Facets of the linear ordering polytope: A unification for the fence family through weighted graphs

The binary choice polytope appeared in the investigation of the binary choice problem formulated by Guilbaud and Block and Marschak. It is nowadays known to be the same as the linear ordering polytope from operations research (as studied by Grötschel, Jünger and Reinelt).The central problem is to find facet-defining linear inequalities for the polytope. Fence inequalities constitute a prominent class of such inequalities (Cohen and Falmagne; Grötschel, Jünger and Reinelt). Two different generalizations exist for this class: the reinforced fence inequalities of Leung and Lee, and independently Suck, and the stability-critical fence inequalities of Koppen. Together with the fence inequalities, these inequalities form the fence family. Building on previous work on the biorder polytope by Christophe, Doignon and Fiorini, we provide a new class of inequalities which unifies all inequalities from the fence family. The proof is based on a projection of polytopes. The new class of facet-defining inequalities is related to a specific class of weighted graphs, whose definition relies on a curious extension of the stability number. We investigate this class of weighted graphs which generalize the stability-critical graphs.     

Support for exclusionism as an independent dimension of social dominance orientation in mainland China

Three studies using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses provided consistent evidence for a three-factor model of the social dominance orientation (SDO) in Mainland China. Support for exclusionism, which was not found in previous research, emerged as an independent SDO factor (Studies 1, 2, and 3). In Study 2, this factor predicted SDO difference between a high status group (managers) and a low status group (entry-level employees). In Study 3, this factor correlated positively with authoritarianism and negatively with altruism. These results provided evidence for the validity of this new SDO factor. The findings are discussed in terms of their relations to China's cultural tradition and contemporary economic development.     

Priorities of Global Justice

One-third of all human deaths are due to poverty-related causes, to malnutrition and to diseases that can be prevented or cured cheaply. Yet our politicians, academics, and mass media show little concern for how such poverty might be reduced. They are more interested in possible military interventions to stop human rights violations in developing countries, even though such interventions – at best – produce smaller benefits at greater cost. This Western priority may be rooted in self-interest. But it engenders, and is sustained by, a deeply flawed moral presentation of global economic cooperation. The new global economic order we impose aggravates global inequality and reproduces severe poverty on a massive scale. On any plausible understanding of our moral values, the prevention of such poverty is our foremost responsibility.     

Positional Goods and the Social Rank Hypothesis: Income Inequality Affects Online Chatter about High‐ and Low‐Status Brands on Twitter

According to a social rank hypothesis, consumers who live in regions with higher income inequality will show greater interest in, and attention toward, positional goods and high‐status brands that serve a social signaling role. We analyze millions of posts on the microblogging platform Twitter for mentions of high‐ and low‐status brands. We find that luxury brands such as “Louis Vuitton” and “Rolex” are more frequently mentioned in tweets originating from US states, counties, and major metropolitan areas with higher levels of income inequality. In contrast, mentions of everyday brands such as “Walmart” or “Kmart” are more frequent in regions with a more equal distribution of income. Using sentiment analysis, we find higher valence (positivity) and arousal (excitement) for tweets that both mention high‐status brands and originate from regions with high levels of income inequality. These results corroborate the social rank hypothesis, showing that more psychological resources are allocated to positional consumption when the income gap between the rich and the poor is larger.     

A critical analysis of recent work on empowerment: implications for gender

A flurry of publications on empowerment by institutions such as the World Bank that emerged from about 2000–2005 was followed by critiques and then a seeming lull in the popularity of and work on empowerment. However, the concept has reappeared recently in what I take to be an important new development that highlights the relational feature of empowerment. In this paper, I begin with the capabilities approach as delineated by Amartya Sen and, specifically, his application of it to gender. This shapes the background against which I highlight how recent work on empowerment by Jay Drydyk, the World Development Report 2012, Gender Equality and Development, and Patti Petesch utilizes but also departs from Sen. I then argue that insights from this recent research can be developed further through a feminist relational framework. With its focus on relationships, relational theory can better capture possibilities for empowering women in and through an analysis of the relationships they are in.     

Who Gets What and Why: Determinants of Social Allocations

Four experiments were conducted to explore how people allocate social resources between meritorious and needy parties. As predicted, participants with high social dominance orientation (SDO), who prefer hierarchical relationships in society, favored meritorious parties. In contrast, participants with low SDO, who value social equality, favored needy parties. Participants appealed to merit- or need-based ideologies to justify their allocations. Apparently, the notion of fairness denotes merit-based reasoning to people with high SDO, whereas it denotes need-based reasoning for those with low SDO. Among the participants, merit- and need-based ideologies were not simply post hoc rationalizations, but rather mediated the allocation decisions. Implications for the study of ideology and for theories of distributive justice are discussed.     

Unequal but not separate: Emergence of rich–poor cooperation in resource exchange

Addressing inequality is a critical challenge for society as a whole and requires sustained efforts to promote fairness and opportunity for all. Filling in the resource gap across social classes is essential in reducing inequality. Previous studies have revealed that ingroup favouritism hinders the rich from cooperating with the poor and expands the wealth gap. Nevertheless, how to find ways of narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor remains an open question. Inducing rich–poor cooperation could be effective in eliciting resource flow across classes. In this study, two experiments using a modified Prisoner's Dilemma game were conducted in Japan (N = 213) and China (N = 150) to examine whether highlighting partners' cooperativeness under permeable group boundaries induces rich–poor cooperation. All participants were allocated to the rich group and participated in the game with programmed rich- or poor-group partner bots, whose cooperation rates were manipulated. Despite the initial resource disparities between participants and the partner bots, participants were more likely to select and cooperate with cooperative poor-group partners than with non-cooperative rich-group partners. Generalized trust played an important role in the enhancement of rich–poor cooperation. The findings shed light on the possibility of reducing inequality and promoting social mobility in society.     

Distancing from a stigmatized social identity: State of the art and future research agenda on self-group distancing

Despite equal rights, minority groups such as ethnic minorities, LGBTQ + people, and people with mental or physical disabilities face discrimination on a day-to-day basis in subtle and hard-to-recognize forms. As discrimination slips beneath the surface, it becomes difficult to fight the stigma using collective social identity coping mechanisms. Instead, individual mobility responses such as distancing the self from the stigmatized identity (“self-group distancing”) become more viable as a way to improve one's individual standing. In this overview of the state of the art, we take a social identity lens to reflect on the current empirical knowledge base on self-group distancing as a coping mechanism and provide a framework on what self-group distancing is; when, where and why self-group distancing likely occurs; and what its consequences are at the individual and the collective level. The contributions in this special issue provide novel insights into how these processes unfold, and serve as a basis to set a future research agenda, for example on what can be done to prevent self-group distancing (i.e., interventions). Together, the insights highlight that while self-group distancing may seem effective to (strategically and temporarily) alleviate discomfort or to improve one's own position, on a broader collective level and over time self-group distancing tends to keep the current unequal social hierarchy in place.